“Once a person is appointed as a sannyasi, does he remain a sannyasi for life even though he may fall-down?”, and I have answered it already twice by citing conversations with Srila Prabhupada. Since you protest that they are too lengthy and indirect, here’s your mono-syllabic answer: No”

So you propose:

When a sannyasi falls down from being a sannyasi he does NOT REMAIN a sannyasi.
When a ritvik falls down from being a ritvik he DOES REMAIN a ritvik (Hamsaduta).

Can you please substantiate according to “guru, sadhu and sastra” (since you stated earlier you only speak on this basis), the reason for the DIFFERENCE in operation between these two positions.

Note, the evidence you offer must explain SPECIFICALLY why one course of action is applicable for one post but the OPPOSITE action is applicable for the other.
Note the highlighted words carefully, because none of the quotes you have offered so far match what you are claiming here. I will repeat again – because I can almost predict you will offer evidence that does not specifically state what you are claiming here — please ensure the quotes state exactly what you are proposing here.

Thank you.

Your servant,
Krishnakant

Dear Krishna Kant Desai, obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada.

You think by clever manipulation of words and logical fallacy you can wiggle your way out of the Letter of July 9th?

“When a sannyasi falls down from being a sannyasi he does NOT REMAIN a sannyasi.” Duh. But we have already pointed out that he is not precluded from taking it up again either immediately or at sometime in the future. Srila Prabhupada proposed that when a sannyasi falls down, he can either continue his sannyasa (if he feels that he can maintain it) or marry. See Back to Prabhupada’s Order, footnote 2.

It seems to me that what you really mean to say is “When a sannyasi falls down from being a sannyasi he is no more sannyasi“.

Fine, let’s test that proposition:

When a sannyasi falls down from being a sannyasi he is no more sannyasi.
When a rittvik falls down from being a rittvik he is no more rittvik.
When a child learning to walk falls down he is no more able to walk.
When a man shaves his head he remains bald.
When a person holds his breath, he is no more breathing.
When the sun descends from the sky it disappears from sight and is no longer visible.
When the Pandavas lost their wealth, kingdom and wife they no longer had wealth, kingdom and wife.

All of the above are true statements. But they cannot necessarily be taken as the final conclusion to the story, because they fail the test when we add the tag phrase “until…” or “unless…”. A sweeping generalization cannot stand alone as truth. This idea that once a position has been given up it cannot be taken up again cannot be applied across the board without exception.

Please note that we are not taking the position that “a person once appointed to a position, will always retain that position regardless of what he may do.” Again, that falls into the same category of sweeping generalization.

Srila Prabhupada’s letter of July 9th speaks for itself. It was an order from Srila Prabhupada. Those persons named therein have a duty to pick up that order and carry it out. They may or may not – but the order is there, and it belongs to them specifically. It is their right and responsibility, and only by coming back to it and taking it up can they be situated in service to Srila Prabhupada once again.

If you are not in agreement with any part of Srila Prabhupada’s letter, or if you disagree with Prabhupada’s instructions to sannyasis who fall down to come back in any case to take up their appointed responsibilities in devotional service, then there is no point to discuss the matter further. So again, I ask you to please answer those three questions I put to you the other day:

1. Do you accept Srila Prabhupada’s directive dated July 9th, 1977 in toto? Yes or No

2. Are you in compliance with that letter? Yes or No

3. Do you accept Hansadutta as rittvik representative of the Acharya? Yes or No

If these persons whom Prabhupada named as rittvik representatives are not eligible to pick up the order, that means that you consider they are not able to be reformed. Similarly, all those GBC members and other ISKCON devotees who have defied the order are not able to be reformed and come back to the order. Reformed means “good as new”, at least in Krishna consciousness, where we have been taught that we pick up from where we left off. So if persons who have received all Prabhupada’s blessings and were engaged by him personally in devotional service cannot be reformed, cannot be restored to their service to Srila Prabhupada, what does that say for the rest of us? What is the point, then, of calling your group by the name ISKCON Reform Movement? Maybe you should change the name to “Krishna Can’t Reform Movement”.

At least, this is what I understand from the words of Prabhupada in his Bhagavad-gita As It Is:

“The material contamination is so strong that even a yogi fully engaged in the service of the Lord sometimes becomes ensnared; but Krishna consciousness is so strong that such an occasional falldown is at once rectified. Therefore the process of devotional service is always a success. No one should deride a devotee for some accidental falldown from the ideal path, for, as is explained in the next verse, such occasional falldowns will be stopped in due course, as soon as a devotee is completely situated in Krishna consciousness. Therefore a person who is situated in Krishna consciousness and is engaged with determination in the process of chanting Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare/Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare should be considered to be in the transcendental position, even if by chance or accident he is found to have fallen. The words sadhur eva, “he is saintly,” are very emphatic. They are a warning to the nondevotees that because of an accidental falldown a devotee should not be derided; he should still be considered saintly even if he has fallen down accidentally. And the word mantavyah is still more emphatic. If one does not follow this rule, and derides a devotee for his accidental falldown, then he is disobeying the order of the Supreme Lord. The only qualification of a devotee is to be unflinchingly and exclusively engaged in devotional service.” (BG 9.30, purport)

Unless these persons do take up the order of Srila Prabhupada – his last written directive – they have no service, and they can only remain fallen, outside the grace of Srila Prabhupada.

This is my position, and I don’t care to quarrel endlessly with you on the basis of flawed logic, mental speculation or any other argument that does not take into consideration Srila Prabhupada’s practical instructions. Today is the last day of the year, and I think our discussion on this matter is also concluded. I also don’t have time for it, and if you will not be persuaded by Prabhupada’s own words and example of mercy to his disciples, I don’t know what will convince you. I’m only sorry if we have to agree to disagree.